Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the NDAA, but before I do, I want to join my colleagues and share their great enthusiasm tonight out here on the Senate floor in talking about the Senate-crafted bill, the Great American Outdoors Act, that took a step closer to getting to the President's desk today. That is the investment that we believe we should be making in open space and public lands passed the House of Representatives and we hope will be signed by the President very shortly. This investment, as my colleagues were talking about tonight, has been a long time in coming on two fronts--obviously, coming from a State that represents a lot of National Parks and areas that need the investment in deferred maintenance projects--everything from Olympic National Park that will get an upgrade for some aging water systems to new trails at Mt. Rainier, to other projects at Lake Roosevelt and even Fort Vancouver. I want to thank all my colleagues, Senators Gardner, Manchin, Portman, King, Burr, Warner, Alexander, Daines, and Heinrich, who made up the coalition who have been working on this issue in the more recent days to make sure that we got it out of the Senate and got it over to the House of Representatives. The important thing is that it has been a bipartisan coalition of people who believe in public lands and open space that has brought us to this point. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was something that Scoop Jackson led the charge on in the 1960s, based on the fact that he thought America was urbanizing and, with our highway system, he thought we would need open space and, boy, was he right. So everything from Gas Works Park in downtown Seattle that gives families a great view of Lake Union to the impressive things that have been done all over the State, being able to say now that the Land and Water Conservation Fund will receive $900 million permanently means two to three times more money than we previously had to make investments in open space. And we know that investments in open space are not only restorative to all of us who enjoy the outdoors, whether it is hunting or fishing or hiking, but it also is a big juggernaut for our economy. That over $800 billion in revenue is generated from this industry, and it is an industry that is well worth putting more investment in. So I thank all my colleagues that were here tonight and for their hard work. Particularly, I want to thank Senator Manchin. Senator Manchin has done an incredible job taking this issue as the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and understanding how important it was to get it over the goal line. So I tell the Senator that I am going to give him a picture of myself hiking in the Dolly Sods in West Virginia as a great thank you for his perseverance of moving this effort to the final goal line. So I just want to thank Senator Manchin and, obviously, all my colleagues.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to continue this debate about the Armed Services bill we are considering on the floor today, and I would just note for my colleagues that I know that it is a general practice, but my colleague from Vermont is bringing up a very big, important point about amendments, and that is that the NDAA is marked up in a secret, closed-door session. It is not like we all have a bright light, and we know what is in there. In fact, they held the language for 3 weeks and then now, all of a sudden, thrust it onto the Senate floor and then don't want us to offer any amendments. In my case, I am objecting, along with the Senator from Vermont, as to a major shift in policy that is in this proposal that shifts money away from the Department of Energy and onto nuclear weapons, where we didn't even vote on it. We didn't vote on it, and members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee are in disagreement about this, the fact that we weren't consulted and that it is basically raiding jurisdiction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by myself, Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Heinrich, Senator Cassidy, Senator Wyden, Senator Barrasso, Senator Risch, and Senator Sanders from Vermont. We object. We are members of the committee. We are very senior members of the committee. We understand the DOE budget. We understand the DOE responsibilities. We don't think it is right for somebody to mark up, in a closed-door session, in the middle of the National Defense Act, a taking of money, basically neutering the Secretary of Energy, basically saying: You only have half of your budget because we are going to dictate over at the Department of Defense exactly how you are going to spend those dollars. So that is a big power grab by a very few people and certainly deserves a vote by the U.S. Senate. It certainly deserves a bright light by the American people because not only are we talking about this from the perspective of the taking away DOE resources and focus from the Secretary of Energy, we are also talking about putting into the hands of the Department of Defense what has been civilian oversight--civilian oversight of the production of our nuclear weapons. So why is this so important, who is in charge of DOE's budget? Well, I think the Secretary of Energy is. I think he comes before Congress. I think he discusses with Congress what that budget is. I think he talks and we talk and we review his nominees and the work they do on this. For me, in the State of Washington, we have the largest nuclear cleanup site in the entire world. So cleaning up Hanford from the plutonium production that was done for our efforts in World War II is a massive, multibillion-dollar-a-year cleanup. I wish it wasn't that much, but it is, and it has been for decades. And people constantly look at that $2 billion and think: We can shave some of those dollars off. I am here to tell you, you can't, not with leaky tanks leaking into the groundwater and moving toward the Columbia River--no. We cannot have people taking half of the DOE budget and then basically deciding that the Department of Defense is going to decide what to do with it. Hanford isn't the only site. There are other cleanup sites--Paducah. There are still things to do with Savannah River. There are cleanup sites all over the United States. To, in the NDAA bill, basically, preclude us from even discussing such a major policy change that is not supported by the Secretary of Energy, not supported by the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee or the ranking member, Senator Manchin, whose amendment we would like to seek a vote on--so I submit to the Record this letter from my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee also objecting to this language

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, what else is at stake? Also, at stake are our National Laboratories. Our National Laboratories do incredibly hard work for us. I know what ours does in the Pacific Northwest because they are an expert on cybersecurity. They are an expert on detection. They are an expert on terrorism and fighting terrorism. So now, all of a sudden, you are going to let the National Nuclear Security Agency decide what that budget looks like because they are going to take more money from it. Now is not the time to allow the Department of Defense, without our oversight that we are sent here to give, to decide what this budget should look like. That is not their role and responsibility. So the fact that somebody thinks they can stick this in, in a closed- door session, and then jam us, without a vote of this body to consider such a major policy change, is appalling. Now, I know that people tried to do this 2 years ago or a year and a half ago and basically got taken out by the House of Representatives, but that is no excuse for doing it now. People jam so many things into this bill. Last time, they jammed in basically the relicensing of a hydroelectric dam. Basically, written into this for the chairman was the revision that said they no longer have to be regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Well, I can tell you, there are lots of people in the State of Washington who would probably love to know that the hydro system didn't have to go through FERC relicensing, but they did have to go through FERC relicensing. And so the fact that that was in a panoply of things stuffed into NDAA, in the final negotiation in the House, they couldn't get it out. So we are being held hostage one more time on the NDAA bill for bad policy that has not had the broad discussion of the U.S. Senate. So I would say to my colleagues: If you care about nuclear waste cleanup, if you care about the agenda of our national laboratories--and I will tell you, you think people are threatening you right now? People are threatening us on cybersecurity. People don't stick a sub into your waters anymore, taunting you or flying aircraft overhead; they basically put software tools into your powerplants, into your military sites. We need our National Laboratories to do their job, not have the money subverted by some agency that we don't see, they don't come to us--they go to a few Members. They go to the Senator from Oklahoma, but they don't come see us and talk about their agenda. They basically just want an increase, and instead of going through the normal legislative process, they basically are trying to short circuit both appropriators and authorizers on this important issue. So if people are proud of that language, if they think it stands, they think it is the right policy, then they should let us have a vote. They should let us have a discussion of who is in charge of DOE's budget because, I guarantee you, most Americans think it is the Secretary of Energy and not a five-, seven-member subcabinet level over at DOD. This is appalling, and it has to stop. Tribute to Joel Connelly Mr. President, if I could, while I am out here on the floor, pay tribute to one of the most iconic newspapers in the State of Washington, the Seattle P-I, and one of its noted journalists who is retiring this week after 47 years writing for the organization. This newspaper, which was part of the Northwest history for decades, finally stopped the print edition several years ago, but it has still been online. Joel Connelly has been an icon of the Northwest, writing about Presidents for decades; writing about Northwest policy, such as the outdoors; writing about the relationship, on international issues, particularly with Canada. Joel said it best. Once he said about his employer, the P-I: ``We do our best to inform you, to intrigue you, amuse you, and at times get under your skin.'' I miss those days of journalism today, where someone has so much knowledge and information about our region, about politics in general, about society that they help keep us informed and engaged. Joel once interviewed Bill Clinton on Air Force One and obviously interviewed many Presidents--both Bushes, Clinton, Obama. He once was a Pulitzer Prize runner-up for his coverage of the Washington Public Power Supply System, and obviously he covered Hanford issues, which I just talked about many times, and many northern border issues. He probably was best known in his coverage of Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus and wrote a book about him and the many fights that happened in the Northwest on land issues for many, many years. So I can't even begin to explain what it will be like without Joel Connelly at the helm of political national commentary for us in the Pacific Northwest. Nobody sharper. Nobody keener. Nobody more experienced. Nobody who struck more fear in me when I had to get on the phone with him because chances were he knew the issue even better than I did, and I had been pretty studied on it, but that is what you get after 47 years in journalism. So I wish him all the best, but I also hope his retirement is a call for all of us to remember how important journalism really is; that the tool and trade of people who basically cover these policies, understand them, and help give commentary in their columns or in their journalism and oversight is what helps us keep our democracy here in the United States. So, Joel, I know you will be up there on Whidbey Island and you will be watching us from afar. I know we are not done hearing the last of you, but I know we have heard a great commentary for 47 years of the P- I and your comments, and we greatly appreciate it I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the civil rights of all Americans and ask my colleagues to vote for a process today that will lead to laws that will protect those civil rights. Unfortunately, the motion to proceed to predetermined legislation is just a predetermined outcome for a weak bill. There is no agreement today by the majority leader and the minority leader on a bipartisan bill. Everyone around here knows the way to get good bipartisan legislation. It starts with a committee process that is open and public and an amendment process. You can, and we have, done things like we did with COVID, where we get a bipartisan group of members together to discuss legislation and put something before Congress. Or you could bring up a bipartisan bill on the Senate floor. But that is not what is happening. That is not what is happening. What is happening is a predetermined process to get a bill that is not good enough for the American people. Voting yes is just an attempt to dictate a weak outcome when what America wants more than anything else is justice. They want justice, guaranteed by a strong Federal response. Leader McConnell said, in talking about the Republican efforts, ``it would encourage smart reforms of law enforcement without steamrolling states and local communities' constitutional powers.'' Elsewhere, he said Democrats want to overreach, ``Federalize all of the issues.'' Well, with all due respect to the majority leader, it is called the Federal Civil Rights Act for a reason. It wasn't right to deny Rosa Parks a seat on a bus when she was fighting for her Constitutional rights. It wasn't right to deny African Americans access to hotels or lunch counters when they were fighting for their civil rights. It wasn't right to use police dogs on Black women trying to register to vote in 1964 in Mississippi when they were fighting for their voting rights. I guarantee you, it is not good enough and would not be good enough to give them 75 percent here. Rosa Parks was not looking for 75 percent; she was looking for someone to uphold her rights. I spoke last night with one of my constituents, Stan Barer, who worked for Senator Warren Magnuson. As a staffer, he drafted the Accommodations Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as one of his first jobs on the Senate Commerce Committee. Can you imagine coming to the U.S. Senate as a young lawyer and getting a job on the Commerce Committee and the first thing you have to do is draft the Accommodations Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I can tell you what he told me. He said: Advocates then tried to minimize the Federal role. That is what we are hearing today, minimize the Federal role. Where would we be if President Kennedy had taken that approach? He fought for equal protection under the law for access to education and to end discrimination and segregation when Southern Governors wouldn't do so. There is a Federal role in protecting the civil liberties of all Americans, and we should not be abdicating it today with this vote. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 after the Civil War when Black Americans faced violence from the KKK and White supremacists in Southern States. It gave them the right to seek relief in Federal court when their Constitutional rights were deprived by someone acting in official capacity. It is those same civil rights that we should be upholding today, upholding those rights--making sure that there is not police brutality. That is what the U.S. Department of Justice is supposed to do. It is supposed to fight to uphold those rights. But we know we have a problem because President Trump and Attorney General Barr have repeatedly abdicated those responsibilities, have failed to uphold those civil rights. Because as the top law enforcement officer in the land, Attorney General Barr could be directing and supervising U.S. attorneys and prosecuting those Federal crimes as violations of civil rights. Well, I know that that is what President Obama did. I know that he worked hard to make sure the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division oversaw pattern and practices of police abuses and entered a number of consent decrees with major cities, including in my State. Yes, the Attorney General is supposed to uphold the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure and the civil rights laws that protect against excessive use of force. But that is not what is happening. Under the Trump administration and Attorney General Barr, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division police practice group has been reduced to half. It has not opened a major pattern or practice investigation, and Trump and his administration have been pulling away from this important role. It started with Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions made it harder to reach consent decrees with cities. So instead of playing the Federal role that we are supposed to play, we have an administration that is enabling bad practices to continue by not stopping them. So, yes, there is a Federal role, there is a Federal role here today, just as there is with voting rights, just as there is with access to public places, just as there is with education and fighting discrimination. In fact, I think that is the central question of this debate. Are we going to have a strong Federal role in protecting the Constitutional rights of all Americans to prevent excessive force by police? It is pretty basic. We want to see a law that says that choke holds should be banned. We are not looking for 75 percent, we are not looking for study and analysis, we are looking to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans. So it is no surprise that the NAACP and Urban League have said that this legislation that our colleagues have proposed on the other side of the aisle does not meet the moment to end racial justice. I ask my colleagues, when are we going to? Maybe the information age has laid bare for us and all our eyes to see that this problem has to be resolved. Are we going to uphold the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure and the civil rights protecting against excessive use of force by police? Are we going to uphold the rights of all Americans, or just some Americans? I would say to my colleagues, if we are not upholding all the Americans' rights, then we aren't really upholding America's civil rights. We have to ask ourselves, what moment are we living in when somebody thinks 75 percent is enough, and it is study and analysis, when we are talking about protecting the rights of all Americans? My mom has been ill and so I've been spending a lot of time with her talking about family history, talking about this moment in our history, and she told me a story of how she was a young girl. She was born in 1932, so you can imagine the era that she lived through. But she told me when her older brother got to go to school, she got to stay home and ride his tricycle, so she thought that was the best. You know, he started kindergarten, she could ride his tricycle up and down the alley. And she met a woman, an African-American woman, who became her friend--her first real friend as a young child. And she got to know that woman so well that my grandparents, in the neighboring building, helped with an election and saw that people were lining up to vote. White people were allowed to come into the building and be warm, but the African-American people had to stay outside in the cold and wouldn't be allowed to come into the building to vote, a great discouragement. Thank God my grandfather went out and built a bonfire and then left to go to work. But when you look at the history of our country--and we still see voter suppression issues today--that is why we have to ask ourselves the fundamental question. When it comes to the civil rights of Americans, a report, 75 percent, is not enough. A clear line ending excessive abuse and declaring choke holds illegal is where we need to be. I ask my colleagues to turn down this measure on a weak, predetermined path and get a real bipartisan effort and uphold the civil liberties of Americans because, I guarantee you, America really is watching. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to join my colleagues to talk about the final passage of the Great American Outdoors Act and to discuss what it really means to all of us. Obviously, the great outdoors means a lot to the State of Washington. Nobody probably needs that explained to them. I recently read a quote from George Vancouver when he was discovering the Pacific Northwest. Even in his remarks, he was so astounded that this was such a beautiful place. It tells you it lasts for generations, and that is what this bill is about. This bill is making it last for generations beyond us. I want to thank the bipartisan effort of five Democrats and five Republicans who joined together to originally put the parks' backlog and maintenance together by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. People should realize that the Land and Water Conservation Fund, over its history--and I followed it closely because Scoop Jackson, a long- time Senator from the State of Washington and the original sponsor of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, understood that America was urbanizing, and we needed to make an investment in open space. That open space gives us park and recreational area. It has literally provided 5 million acres of protected land since its inception. There are 5 million acres of land throughout the United States of America that we can identify in every State of the United States to give Americans access to open space. I mentioned Gas Works Park in the State of Washington and Seattle because it is so iconic. I don't think people would think that Lake Union would be the same without Gas Works Park. It was a great idea by the leaders of our Congress at the time to pass the Land and Water Conservation Act. We had a fight, literally, in the last 10 or 15 years between people who didn't want to fully fund or even support the Land and Water Conservation Act. We let it expire 2 years ago, and people were in an argument about how to reauthorize it. People then wanted to say that we don't really want to do new land; we want to take care of the backlog. That debate went on for a time. I think we really tried to emphasize the great economy related to the outdoors because taking this revenue from oil and gas offshoring and putting it into land conservation has been a big win for the American people. Not only do they get open space and be able to recreate, but it puts money back into our economy as well because the outdoor economy is a big juggernaut at $877 billion. We are ending this debate today. We are ending this paradigm that has existed between some Members who have said: Yes, I care about the parks that are already there, and maybe we should take care of the backlog, but I don't want any new money going to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has dedicated across the United States 5 million acres as open space for all Americans to enjoy. That is a big win--ending this debate and ending this, I would say, misdirected discussion that tried to pit land against one another and, basically, people who didn't want more open space and public land. I think we are ending that debate on a very firm note today that says the Senate really believes that open space is a great driver of our economy, but more importantly, it is an essential aspect of American life, and we are going to continue to invest in it. For us in the State of Washington, we have received something like $700 million over the life of this project since the 1960s. With this legislation today, we are basically making sure the Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars connected from offshore oil revenue is spent in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We will receive hundreds of millions more--between $200 million and $300 million more in Land and Water Conservation Fund investment. I can't wait to see what that does for us in the Northwest. As I said, starting with George Vancouver and on down to today, everybody in the Northwest knows that the environment is so precious to us. It is great for its restorative value but also great for our economy so we want to keep it, and we want to keep investing in it. The backlog and maintenance we are talking about is a phenomenal investment. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit Mount Rainier sometime if you are in the Pacific Northwest. You can drive up to Paradise and visit. Those roads and the facilities there need maintenance. Even several years ago we used the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Carbon River improvement on a road that kept washing out every year, and now we moved it to higher ground, expanding the park. That makes it more beneficial for people to go to that side of the mountain as well. I am reminded what Teddy Roosevelt said: ``The nation behaves well if it treats the national resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.'' That is what we are doing today. We are returning that value to the next generation. I want to specifically thank Senator Manchin for his leadership on our side of the aisle on this. Having sponsored this legislation myself 2 years ago with Senator Burr and getting it out of the committee, we were sad to see that it got stuck on the Senate floor. We are glad this coalition of five Democrats and five Republicans led by Senator Gardner has managed to get it to this point. I also want to mention that Senator Burr's leadership over the last two Congresses--actually, all the way back to 2010, where he fought to make sure that this Land and Water Conservation legislation was reauthorized and that we make this investment--has played a pivotal role in making sure that people understand what that investment means to the United States. So a huge day for public lands in the U.S. Senate and a huge day to say that Americans will be getting more open space and that our parks will be getting a little bit of a facelift, if you will, around their roads and bridges and facilities, their trails, the management of our forests, the infrastructure that is entailed in giving public access to these public spaces. It couldn't be a more important investment, and it couldn't give America a bigger return. So I thank my colleagues. I look forward to getting this rapidly through the House of Representatives. I yield the floor

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, before I speak about the legislation we are going to be voting on shortly, I wanted to mention today's significant Supreme Court decision to protect the LGBTQ community and Americans from discrimination in the workplace. This is a very important step forward. Gay and transgender Americans should not face discrimination in the workplace or live in fear of losing their jobs simply because of who they are, and it is an important step forward but is also long overdue. My home State of Washington has been a leader on this issue for decades, but--just think--until today, June 15, 2020, we had no nationwide rules against firing an employee or harassing someone at work for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans. That is just wrong, and LGBTQ+ Americans still face discrimination in far too many areas of life: public accommodations, housing, education, and some federally funded programs. We have proposed legislation that would be, I believe, comprehensive civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation to help protect this community. The House has passed this legislation, and I believe it is time that the Senate pass this legislation. Leader McConnell and the Republicans should take the Equality Act out of the legislative graveyard and get it onto the Senate floor. Today I join my colleagues Senators Merkley, Baldwin, and others who are calling for Senate action on this important issue. Again, I want to emphasize how important and fundamental I think this decision was and how challenging and disappointed I am that we have had legislation to protect this community that we could have passed decades ago.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Mr. John Dwyer has distinguishably served the U.S. Coast Guard and our Nation for more than 43 years, on Active Duty, in the Coast Guard reserves, and as a long-time Coast Guard civilian serving in Seattle, WA. John earned his bachelor's degree from Gonzaga University in 1976 and was selected shortly thereafter to attend Coast Guard Officer Candidate School. Upon his graduation in 1977, he was commissioned as an Active- Duty officer in the Coast Guard. In 1985, he transitioned to the Coast Guard reserves, where he continued to advance until retiring as a captain in 2005, while serving as the Pacific Area Reserve Chief of Staff. During this time, John also earned his master's degree from the University of Washington, School of Marine Affairs, in 2004 and became a Department of Homeland Security senior fellow. Concurrent with his Reserve status, John began his service as a Coast Guard civilian employee in 1986, allowing him to focus his expertise on the Puget Sound region and serve as an invaluable source of knowledge and continuity for the rotating Coast Guard personnel. Ultimately, he advanced to serve as the officer in charge, marine inspection and the chief of the Inspection Division at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound. In this important role, John was responsible for ensuring the safety, environmental protection, and security standards for commercial vessels and waterfront facilities throughout Puget Sound, as well as the navigable waters of Washington State and Montana. Throughout his service while in uniform, John was repeatedly recognized for actions that increased safety in the maritime industry. As early as 1977, as a young lieutenant, John improved the safety of the vital North Pacific maritime industry as he helped establish an uninspected vessel examination program in the Coast Guard's 17th district. The processes he established were smoothly transitioned from the district offices to a new field unit, the Marine Safety Office in Anchorage, AK. He was recognized in the early 1990s as commanding officer of the Reserve unit in Tacoma, WA, where John systematically found meaningful ways to increase reserve member participation in marine safety inspections, which had traditionally been conducted by Active-Duty members. By enhancing the role for reservists in marine inspections, John improved the safety of people in the commercial fishing and maritime industries, while also boosting the efficiency of the Coast Guard. During his years of public service, John directly contributed to the maritime safety and security of our Nation. John's direct oversight ensured the seamless flow of maritime commerce, including the transportation of almost 24 million passengers per year on the Washington State ferries, the largest ferry system in the United States. He led the effort to create the region's first multiagency maritime security team that was responsible for the security of the expansive international maritime border between the United States and Canada. This successful program was adopted and became a best practice throughout the Nation. John was also directly involved in ensuring the safety of commercial fishing vessels in the North Pacific and Bering Sea fisheries, worth more than $4 billion annually. His work with the fishing community undoubtedly saved lives and resulted in John becoming the standard-bearer for fishing vessel safety to Coast Guard members, fishermen, and policymakers across the Nation. Above his exemplary execution of Coast Guard mission requirements, John left his mark as a skilled and thoughtful mentor. John served as a patient teacher and remarkable mentor for thousands of Coast Guard personnel. He generously shared his 43 years of maritime experience in vessel inspections, port security, waterfront facility inspections, mariner licensing, casualty investigations, and marine disaster and firefighting response to train the next generation of leaders within the Coast Guard's Marine Safety program. His leadership and commitment to the professional development of others made an incredible impact on more than 1,200 Coast Guard junior officers and enlisted members, many of whom are now serving as executive level leaders in the Coast Guard and throughout the Federal Government. His mentees include a member of the Senior Executive Service, three Coast Guard flag officers, 10 Coast Guard captains of the Port, and several enlisted members who are now serving in successful leadership roles in government and private industry. During my time on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I have had the benefit of working with a number of Coast Guard members that had been mentored by John. John trained them well. Without a doubt, these members have left their mark on multiple Coast Guard authorization bills that have been signed into law with meaningful improvements to maritime safety and environmental protection at the national level. I am personally grateful to have had the opportunity to work with so many members who were mentored by John, and I am sure that, after John retires, I will continue to learn from those he influenced over his long career. John also served as an influential leader within Puget Sound's maritime community. In the wake of the tragedy of September 11th, he played a key role in Puget Sound as the Coast Guard implemented the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. He served as the head of the vessel security and Washington State ferries security sub- committees within the Puget Sound Maritime Security Committee and played a critical advisory role in Puget Sound's Harbor Safety Committee. He was always available to provide advice on maritime topics and was frequently invited to speak at maritime events. In recognition of his tremendous impact, the Seattle Propeller Club named John as its Public Official of the Year in 2013 and the Puget Sound Port Maritime Council recognized him as its Maritime Person of the Year in 2017. John's actions and decisions were always in the best interest of the public in which he selflessly and tirelessly served as he worked to ensure the safety, security, and environmental protection of Washington State and the pristine waters of Puget Sound. He will be missed, but his legacy of service and those he trained will live on. I thank John Dwyer for his selfless service to the United States Coast Guard, the entire Pacific Northwest, and our Nation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to speak about the historic vote to happen shortly that will advance conservation and public lands projects, called the Great American Outdoors Act. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. First, I thank everyone who has been involved in this legislation-- Senator Gardner, who just joined us on the floor; Senator Manchin, who spoke earlier; Senator Daines; Senator Warner; Senator Portman, who also spoke earlier; Senator Alexander; Senator King; Senator Burr; and then several other Senators who will, I know, participate tomorrow as a group and speak--Senators Tester, Bennet, Heinrich, and so many more. This coalition has said we should spend the money in the fund for LWCF and combine it with taking care of parks' backlog. This has been a priority of two different groups of Senators who have worked together to try to pass this legislation. I also thank Senators Portman, Alexander, King, and Warner and my House colleague, Representative Kilmer, for working so diligently on the parks' backlog. I thank Senator Alexander specifically, who has been one of the champions of the parks' backlog. Just a few years ago, I remember I asked him: Lamar, do you think we are really going to get $6.5 billion spent on the backlog? He said: We are going to try our darned best. Apparently, Lamar Alexander's darned best today has been a success in helping us to move this forward. Again, I thank the prime sponsors of the bill, Senator Gardner and Senator Manchin, for their steadfast work on the LWCF and the parks' backlog. I also thank Senator Burr, who is a steadfast champion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and who, with me, helped to sponsor the permanent reauthorization of the Fund and tried to get the funds spent. This effort has continued over many decades by many colleagues, including by two former Senators, Bingaman and Baucus, who were both giants in all of this. I thank everybody for their important efforts over the years that have gotten us to this point today. Why are we here? A lot of people would ask: In the middle of a pandemic, an economic crisis, and a big struggle to energize the need for civil rights and equality, why are we talking about a public lands bill? As I said, we are here because there is a lot of history behind the outdoors economy and the economy itself of the activities that generate an economic return from having public lands. This has been a juggernaut for us. There is $887 billion in consumer spending every year, and that helps to support about 7.6 million jobs. While some are probably asking, ``How did we get so lucky to have this coalition of bipartisan Senators come together with regard public lands and public land investment, and why can't we take that same magic and make it happen in other places?'' I encourage my colleagues not only to get this legislation done and think about how we did get it done together but also to think about how special public lands are for the United States of America. Public lands are part of our history. They are part of what we have invested in on behalf of the citizens of the United States so you have a place to recreate, to hunt, to fish, to find solace, to find recovery, to find enjoyment, to find amazement when you see the wonderful places, particularly in the State of Washington. Because the LWCF is paid for by royalties from oil companies that drill off our shores, these investments don't cost the taxpayers a dime or add to our deficit. This bill will be injecting money into our economy, creating more jobs, and fixing the repairs that we need to our lands and lands infrastructure. Over the last half a century, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has supported over 42,000 State and local projects, and it has included an investment of $725 million in the State of Washington. It has helped us to expand access to clean rivers, hunting lands, forestlands, and to improve our national parks. It has been a critical protection tool for heritage areas and for augmenting wildlife refuges across our State. In fact, the LWCF fund has supported 98 percent of the parks in counties across the United States of America. At one point in time, 98 percent of the counties across this country have used the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the State of Washington, it has helped us to establish iconic places like Gas Works Park; Bidwell Park, which is near Spokane; the Burnt Bridge Creek Trail, which winds through Vancouver; and the Warren G. Magnuson Park at Sand Point, which has been used for valuable conservation easements and to help popular forest legacy programs that partner with timber owners to promote sustainable forestry. The Great American Outdoors Act has helped us to make a decision that has been long debated and long disputed. David Brooks, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, could tell you how many times we have had to debate both the backlog and the LWCF issues and how people have wanted to spend those dollars. It has been a very, very challenging issue for years. Besides saying that we are going to take money and put it forward to permanently fund the LWCF, the bill also says that we are going to tackle the backlog and maintenance. I mentioned the $6.5 billion infusion for that maintenance. For us in the State of Washington, with our many national parks, there is $262 million for deferred maintenance costs to include repairs to the water treatment system at Olympic National Park. It could help us with $186 million in deferred maintenance at Mount Rainier. It could help us with miles of trails and access to campgrounds. It could also help us in the very important area of expanding access. There are other projects in the State of Washington, and sometimes, when we don't take care of our backlog and maintenance, we don't get the dollars because they go to the larger parks. So this will help us to make sure we don't ignore that crumbling infrastructure or the deteriorating hiking trails or the aging visitors centers. It will help us with projects like the $28 million needed for the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, the $2.6 million for the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, the $43 million that is needed for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in southwest Washington, the $18 million for the North Cascades National Park in Washington, and the $5 million for the San Juan Island National Historic Park in the northern part of our State. As you can see, the State of Washington is definitely in the outdoor industry business. We have been very blessed with a beautiful environment, and we have been very blessed with an economy that has been based on those beautiful outdoors. So we are very happy today that our colleagues have joined in this bipartisan effort to say that public lands really do mean a lot to our Nation and that they deserve an upgrade--a facelift--an investment, and a commitment to keep funding the things that will allow us to expand public access to them. It is the legislation that we need to pass even in this unbelievable time of so many other critical issues. I believe now, more than ever, our local parks and our urban green space can give solace to Americans who need refuge from all of the issues we are dealing with. Now, more than ever, we need to promote access to the shared public lands so that every American can get access, and the American people have had an incredibly difficult several few months. Let's give them something to think about for their futures--access to the great outdoors, which will help all of us in the future. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today after my colleagues have held a moment of silence for the passing of George Floyd. His family should not be preparing for his funeral today. All Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, deserve to have equal protection under the law. It is time that we not just speak out about injustice; it is time that we pass new Federal laws to protect the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and protect them from these injustices. What is our role here in the U.S. Senate? I believe it comes to passing new laws for those Federal protections. The U.S. Attorney General is the top law enforcement of our country. He directs and supervises U.S. attorneys that prosecute Federal crimes. The Attorney General is supposed to make sure that citizens in our country have equal protection of the law. He is supposed to uphold the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure and the Civil Rights Act, that protects against excessive use of force by police. It is not about calling out the military. It is about protecting the civil liberties of our U.S. citizens. He is supposed to enforce 18 U.S. Code Sec 242, which prohibits the deprivation of rights under the color of law. It criminalizes abuse by police. The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is supposed to step in when police departments have serious abuses. The Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing Federal prohibitions on patterns or practices of policing that violate the Constitution or other Federal laws. It conducts investigations of allegations of systemic police misconduct and reaches comprehensive agreements on reforms that are needed to restore effective policing and trust with communities. If it cannot reach an agreement, the Division will bring a Federal lawsuit to compel the needed reforms. Yes, we have something to do here in Washington. Throughout U.S. history, the Civil Rights Division has played a major role in a number of critical cases, including the prosecution and murders of Medgar Evers and Dr. Martin Luther King. Yes, we have something to do here in Washington. The Obama administration made policing reform a priority. The Civil Rights Division was active in helping oversee pattern and practices of police department abuses and entered numerous consent decrees with Seattle, with New Orleans, on Ferguson, with Baltimore, and with Cleveland. Why? Because we had cases that needed that Federal oversight. We saw that there were abuses of use of force across the country, including even in my home State, that we needed to address. In 2006, Otto Zehm, a man with developmental disabilities, was wrongly accused of stealing money from an ATM. Mr. Zehm was improperly hog-tied by police, placed on his stomach, and he died from lack of oxygen to his brain. As he was dying, he said, ``I was just on my way to get a Snicker bar.'' It breaks my heart that somebody with disabilities was treated this way. There was a Federal indictment in this case and the police officer was found guilty of excessive use of force, lying to investigators about the confrontation. As a result of a civil case, the Spokane police were required to receive special training on interaction with mentally ill suspects and detainees. In 2010, John T. Williams, a Native American, a seventh-generation woodcarver who used his knife to make street art, was fatally shot seven times in the back by Seattle police. He had hearing difficulties and mental health challenges. Literally, he was just carving in one spot and decided to move across the street to another spot. When he didn't respond to the officer, he was shot and killed. The officer who killed Mr. Williams wasn't charged, but the U.S. Department of Justice did investigate and found that there was a pattern and practice of abuse by Seattle police. The U.S. Department of Justice and Seattle agreed on a consent decree, which required a number of reforms. And now, just recently, an African American named Manuel Ellis died from respiratory arrest due to physical restraint by a Tacoma police officer. This just happened in March of 2020. Meth and an enlarged heart contributed to his death, but the Pierce County medical examiner ruled his death a homicide, and his case is under investigation. All of these issues in the State of Washington led our citizenry to have a debate about this. In 2018, 62 percent of Washington voters approved ballot initiative 940. It required de-escalation. It required training for police officers to understand how to help and deal with the public. It mandated first aid to a victim of deadly force, and it required an outside investigation into the use of that deadly force. It also removed the requirement that prosecutors prove malice to hold police officers criminally liable for use of deadly force. And that continues to need improvement in our state. These were steps in the right direction, but these events in the last several weeks have showed us that it is not time to step back from this issue; it is time to pass new Federal legislation. Under the Trump administration and Attorney General Barr, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division police practices group has been reduced to half. It has not opened a major pattern-or-practice investigation of police departments' violation of civil and constitutional rights. President Trump and his administration have pulled back from Department of Justice's important oversight role, at a time we can see that we need more of a Federal role, not less. In November 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed the Department of Justice policy to make it even harder for the Department to perform its oversight role of our police departments. He made it harder for the Department of Justice to reach dissent decrees with State and city governments and limited the reforms that they could require. The Trump administration has shown that it isn't interested in the community policing programs that have shown success in the past. There are numbers that statistically show that better investment in community policing helps us lower the crime rate. In 2017, the Trump administration led the U.S. Department of Justice to significantly scale back on the Obama-era program called Collaborative Reform Initiative, which provided support to improve trust between police and communities. And under the Trump administration, it no longer strongly supports consent decrees, which have been so helpful in holding local cities and police departments accountable for civil rights abuses. The Trump administration tried to defund the Office of Community Policing and Services Program. Thank god our colleagues have refused that. This provides important Federal funding help hire community policing and officers and to provide technical assistance. I think this stands in stark contrast to President Obama, who requested that the COPS program be funded each year in his budget request. But all of this brings us to where we are today. What the citizenry of the United States of America is telling us is that we need better laws on the books. I believe we need to act here. The death of George Floyd has shown us that there is a clarion call and a need for more Federal action. I believe in these things: I believe that we should have a prohibition on chokeholds and knee restraints that cut off oxygen to the brain. I believe that we should, just like the State of Washington, provide for more Federal support for de-escalation training. I believe in establishing a Federal standard for the use of body cameras, and when they should be mandatory, because I think they should be, and making sure that what happens to the video is available, and that the public knows and understands what is happening. I believe in requiring an independent investigation, just like we did under State statute--and by the way, that initiative that was voted on, with some of these provisions in them, in the State of Washington, and received 60-percent approval from the Washingtonians of our State. Why? Because they believe these things are essential. The Duckworth bill provides for a independent investigation when deadly force has been used, and we should be making this the Federal law of the land. And we need to provide more support for community policing, and not just the dollars but accountability for when and how the dollars are used, so the community knows exactly what is going on with the Federal dollars for community policing. And we need to require the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General, who lead the USDOJ Civil Rights Division, to vigorously identify and end patterns and practices of abuse in police departments and seek penalties for those who haven't. I suggest a Federal audit every year where there are practices and patterns of abuse and give us the information so that we in Congress can also help in holding those accountable for not meeting the Federal standards of upholding citizenries' civil rights. And we need to create a clear Federal standard on the use deadly force, just like the Washington State voters did when they passed legislation. Whether we do it like the Washington voters in ending the defense on malice, or whether we look at what my colleagues Senator Booker, Harris, and Markey have suggested, let's have that debate. I am ready to say to my side of the aisle: Let's get these issues--I mentioned seven of them--let's get them out here. I am asking my colleagues on this side of the aisle: let's engage on this Federal debate and show the citizenry of America that we hear them. Let's not also just be deaf to the plight and fate that our officers are dealing with every day on the streets of America. We need more funding to help our police departments. We definitely, in some cases, need additional pay. But for this, we also need to deal with our housing crisis, our mental health crisis, our opioid addiction crisis. So many of our men and women in blue are policing our streets not for crimes but for dealing with the population that is living on the streets. We need to do better here than to shortchange them and to not help--not to help correct these situations that have now become day-to- day tasks in what has never been part of the law enforcement effort. I ask my colleagues, let's put our differences aside to get real action on these. There is a Federal role on civil rights enforcement. Let's take that role seriously, let's respond to the death, and do something about it. I know that the best way to honor George Floyd today would be to help pass the laws that help protect the citizenry of our State. We are a great country, and we can do better by meeting this challenge. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to speak about the critical aspect of the paycheck act as it relates to businesses, particularly in the newspaper and broadcasting business. It is so important for us to address this issue because these are the people who are on the frontlines delivering the information to us about this crisis. Unfortunately, in the past legislation, we did not include associations of broadcasters and newspapers under the definition, so up to several thousand newspapers and hundreds of local radio and television stations across the country are without existing programs by the small business affiliation rule to assist these companies in keeping important news print and news broadcasting staff at their jobs. When I think about what I have learned about the coronavirus from these individuals, what I have learned about the broadcast information of nursing home problems, what I have learned about issues with Remdesivir, I all know that it came down to the local media who was telling us about it. So when I think of the headlines I am seeing--the LA Times, ``Coronavirus crisis hastens the collapse of local newspapers.''; ``Long-Struggling Local Newspapers Pushed to Brink Brought by Coronavirus''--I know it is time for us to do something to help these individuals, and I hope that we can do that soon. We need the media--the local small media--to help us continue to communicate. After all, the basis of a democracy is about truth and transparency, and they are helping to build a community of truth and transparency. We need to help them during this crisis. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work on this legislation and to urge my colleagues to move forward today because the State of Washington desperately needs this help. When I think about this package that has been crafted literally since Saturday starting at about 10 o'clock and when I think about the people who had run to collaborate--yes, there were many challenges to that collaboration--I also think about the people who are on the frontlines in the State of Washington who have paid such a heavy price--from the factory worker we just lost in Everett, WA, to the COVID-19 disease; to the grocer at the Leschi Market, who was just trying to help deliver groceries to a needing public; to the pathologist at the University of Washington who was a leader in this field but who also lost his life. Real sacrifice and real, crushing blows have been dealt snce December. But today we are responding with more help for our States. We are giving them more money for hospitals, more money for the frontline with protective gear, more money for testing, and more money to support them as they continue the effort to try to stop this disease. It is so important that we give State and local governments and Tribes the resources they need to be on the frontlines in fighting this disease, and I thank our Governor, Governor Inslee, for leading that charge every single day in trying to focus our response on this disease. Because we were the site of the first COVID-19 case, we have been at this since January 21, and the sadness we have all felt over the Kirkland nursing home, where we lost so many patients, we hope will be a lesson for the rest of the Nation to pay attention to the seriousness of this virus. We are also here today, though--besides giving that frontline support to States, to cities, to counties, and to our healthcare delivery system--to say that we want to try to lessen the economic impacts of a shelter-in-place or social distancing. Our businesses, small businesses, have been hit hard. Our restaurants, our other businesses that have shut down, that don't have the same resources to come to Washington, DC, and to lobby for aid and support, are counting on us to create a program that small businesses can get both grants and loans. So the $360 billion in this program I hope SBA will help dispatch with urgency to those businesses that have complied and have done their best to keep their employees while also shutting down their business. We also know that the unemployment benefits in this package, which will be for an additional 4 months, will be a boost for people who are unemployed, and the expansion of that definition to cover those who are part of a gig economy who may not have been covered in the past is important to give people the safety net to make it through this process. I wish we would have come to terms on even allowing for COBRA enhancements, particularly for the aerospace sector. I will be filing a bill today to make sure that as we continue to move through this crisis, we think about those who are going to have a shift--are laid off, as we have seen in recent days in Everett, WA--so that they, too, could have healthcare beyond just 1 month of a COBRA health plan. It is so important in fighting this disease that we not only take care of unemployment benefits, but we also make sure people in unemployment have access to healthcare. We can't be in the midst of a pandemic and not give people affordable access to healthcare. I also thank my colleagues for other provisions of this package that are helping in giving individual taxpayers relief in the sense of a rebate check. Not only will individuals get a rebate check of $1,200, but families will get a rebate check of $2,400 that should help those who have been hit hardest by this disease in these days in which we are sheltering in place in the State of Washington. There are so many more things we need to do, and while I support the elements of supporting the aviation industry in this package, I wish we would have gotten more requirements on the airline industries for the grant section of this bill. I personally believe that in the future in a healthier airline industry, they should pay money back to the Federal Government. We certainly should be protecting the workforce during this time period, and that is what is most important--to make sure that an airline doesn't take money from the Federal Government or go into bankruptcy and shortchange the workers and the workforce, as has been done in previous packages for them. I fully support, though, the loan guarantee program and the loan guarantees that are so important and so qualified in this package to have very specific requirements to them. I also want to thank my colleagues from the Banking Committee who worked hard on provisions in this legislation to make sure there was more transparency in the process for who got access to the loans in this package. While we think of the processes we have been through before on TARP and the processes we have been through before on other lending, our colleagues here on this side of the aisle made sure that there were better requirements for oversight, inspector generals' accounting of the resources, and to make sure that we knew exactly where these dollars were being spent. I know Treasury will have its hands full, but because of Democrats, we will have more transparency in exactly how those dollars go out the door. So I want to thank Leader Schumer and his staff for working so diligently on this package. It has been a very hectic couple of days. And I would say a special thanks to the Commerce Committee staff, to David Strickland, Melissa Porter, David Martin, Ronce Almond, who literally have been camped out for--probably since last Saturday, working and perfecting the language in these sections related to aviation. As I said, there is more work to do, and we all know there is more work to do. I know I want to continue the fight for the aviation supply chain, to make sure that when we come out of this crisis after an economic downturn around the globe, the United States is well positioned to return the supply chain workforce to building one of America's best products--airplanes. One of America's greatest-- actually, America's single largest export is airplanes. But to do that, we are going to have to get through this crisis and protect what we think needs to be continued healthcare access for those laid-off workers. So let's get these dollars to the frontline, to our hospitals, to our States, for better equipment, for more supplies. Let's support them in doing what they do best, helping to fight this disease and seeing this through to the other side of America's challenge. I yield the floor Recognition of the Minority Leader

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about the ongoing crisis of the novel coronavirus outbreak and to urge all of us to pass this supplemental as quickly as possible. As of this morning, there are 163 confirmed cases in 17 States across the country, but no State has been more hard hit than the State of Washington. We now have 39 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and more than 230 people under public health monitoring. We have lost 10 of our citizens. Our thoughts and prayers are with those families who have lost loved ones, and there are still families who have loved ones in nursing homes and who are trying to make sure they get the appropriate care in this ongoing crisis. I would also like to thank the workers who are on the frontlines of this healthcare crisis and are doing everything they can to help keep our citizens safe. What is clear in this supplemental is that we need more resources for testing. The testing capabilities will help our communities understand the community transfer of this virus and what else we need to do to help stop its spread. Some of the funding in this supplemental can be helpful for our smaller public labs to do more testing to help our public health officials respond to this crisis, and, as I urged yesterday, for the CDC and others to make it clear through our public health sites exactly how the public can go about getting access to testing. This is so critical because I know there are people in the State of Washington who feel ill, who feel they might be subject to this coronavirus and aren't getting tested. We want to make sure the public clearly understands what their paths are for getting those tests, and we want to make sure that every lab--commercial and academic--in the United States is getting prepared to help us in the advent of the spread of this virus. Why? Because helping to identify these early cases is what will help us be successful in understanding these patterns and further the community separations that we need to do. Why is this so important? Well, today in the State of Washington, they are taking major steps. Major employers are encouraging their employees, if possible, to work from home. These are companies like Microsoft and Facebook and Amazon--major employers. We have 23 schools that have closed and 2 school districts that are entirely shut down. Why are they doing this? Because they are taking precautions for people who have been exposed to the coronavirus in those schools, and they are doing everything they can to make sure that they respond correctly. In addition, King County has recommended that anyone over the age of 60, anyone with a preexisting medical condition, or anyone who is pregnant should avoid public places and gatherings as much as possible. We are taking all these steps now because we are at the epicenter of this crisis, but I want people to know that there are other things that other States can be doing to learn from what we have done in Washington. The fact is that we had a flu lab that actually was a collaboration among our academic and scientific and health communities to get people who thought they simply had the flu to also be tested, and we found cases of the coronavirus. That actually is something you have to set up and get permission for. I hope that every State will follow suit and set up such a cohort of people working together to share that information so that we can help prevent the spread. Washington State will receive $11.5 million in funding to help the Department of Health respond to this crisis. I know the Vice President is visiting our Governor in Olympia, WA, today. I hope these funds in this bill we are passing today will increase access for public lab testing, help pay for isolation and quarantine, help pay for sanitizing in public areas, better track the areas and those who might come into contact with it, help labs that are trying to identify hot spots, and limit exposure. As part of this package, Washington State will also be helped with reimbursements since the outbreak of this virus--and I can tell you that they are many--and to help us push through the protocols that would help us establish better responses. Yesterday, we had a hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee to talk about what is needed for an aviation protocol. I know that some airlines in our State are doing everything possible to clean planes on every turn of the trip and to do deep cleaning. They are communicating--and we have encouraged them to communicate more--with their passengers exactly what they are doing to help with the mitigation of this virus. But that is not a substitute for the Department of Transportation, federally, and the CDC, collaboratively, to work in giving guidance to airlines on what standards they should be meeting to help mitigate the spread of this virus. My colleagues and I are calling on them to do that, not simply to think of this as other agencies' responsibilities but to work collaboratively to get this done. I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for getting this legislation to us today and all of our colleagues who have worked so quickly on making it happen. I can tell you that we need these funds; we need them now; and we need other States to heed the early testing that would have been helpful in our State and now may be helpful in yours. Let's get as aggressive about testing as possible. Let's get aggressive about sharing information about the flu and tracking this virus. Let's get aggressive about trying to mitigate the impacts of this deadly disease. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues speaking about what has transpired over the last several weeks and also to say something that I think is maybe not as obvious as what people realize, and that is that election interference is the issue of our day. It is not because we just spent 11 days talking about it, and what might have happened in the Oval Office about interference in the upcoming 2020 election. It is the issue of our day because we live in an information age, and weaponizing misinformation has become a lethal campaign tool. That is to say that, if you tarnish your opponent enough with misinformation, accuse them of corruption, then you can either score by wounding them fatally--that is, by getting people not to vote for them or by disincentivizing people to vote at all. Claiming corruption seems to be a pretty good tool these days to wound anybody, to wound institutions, the free press, legitimate government oversight, but most seriously, it wounds our democracy by sowing doubt into free and fair elections. Once voters believe the election results are corrupt, it is hard for them to have faith in the results, and it is hard to make tough decisions that we need to make as a society to move forward. Voting, in and of itself, does give us confidence as a nation, unless we know there are free and fair elections, we know the public has spoken and the results are legitimate. I am personally grateful to my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton, for how he handled the 2000 election. After a 3-week recount and a margin of less than one half of 1 percent, with control of the Senate, a 50-50 split to be decided, he conceded. Since then--and even at that time-- some States tried to suppress provisional ballots. But Senator Gorton not only believed that provisional ballots were legitimate, but he believed that the election was correctly decided. That must have been a tough moment for him as he saw a shift in public sentiment in the State of Washington, as we have moved more toward a different direction. But today we live in a world of disinformation, where distrust can be served up like your own personal cocktail. After consuming and analyzing endless amounts of personal data about you, someone knows exactly what disinformation tactic will work best with you. It is almost like disinformation on steroids. Our adversaries, the Russians, are especially sowing these seeds of distrust into our democracy trying to dissuade people from even voting and more seriously trying to divide us as a Nation and tarnish our democracy. I don't know if this is some payback from President Putin, who believes that the United States helped in the demise of the Soviet Union, or if Russia is just trying to undermine American and European trust and free and open democratic systems; or if Russia is trying to divide Europe so it can dominate European energy supplies and exert its influence over European policies. I just know this: We are not the first act of this play. This has been going on for many years and in many places. They have interfered in European elections. A 2018 report shows, ``the Europeans launched several multilateral and regional initiatives to improve Europe's reliance to improve Europe's resilience to building collective defenses against disinformation and cyber-attacks, improving cross- border cooperation . . . and applying sanctions against malicious actors.'' The Russians interfered in our 2016 election, our own intelligence agencies agreed. The Special Counsel's investigation ``established Russia interfered in the 2016 election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer intrusions and operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working for the Hillary Clinton campaign and released stolen documents.'' We must fight back against Russia or anyone who interferes in our elections. Protecting our elections should be a bipartisan effort. We should listen to what the intelligence community says, because they are warning us now that Russia will interfere again in the 2020 elections. That is why I take so seriously the House charges that President Trump was involved in a scheme, over a long period of time, involving many people, to ask the Ukrainians to interfere in our election. As Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said, ``let me make something 100% clear to the American people and anyone running for office. It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept.'' So why has President Trump continued to sow distrust in our elections? He thought it was okay to ask the Russians to interfere in 2016, and he seems to be inviting Ukrainian interference in 2020. As one of my former campaign staffers asked last weekend, ``are campaigns now going to be communications directors, fundraising directors, and foreign operations directors? You know, those people who go around and seek influence, perhaps dark money or endorsements from foreign governments? Will this become some sort of norm because we're not acting?'' We already know what the dark, murky world of Paul Manafort looks like. That is why it is so important for us to be clear here. Seeking, requesting, and accepting interference in a U.S. election campaign is wrong. It is not just inappropriate, it is not just improper, it is illegal. By calling it improper or turning a blind eye in this case, is enabling more election interference. What is not clear is who are all the President's men in this administration who are helping him abuse his power. He is using his office for political gain. How are they accomplishing this task for him? It is so disappointing to see that this might be happening in our Nation. Where will the abuse stop? I know this. As a young girl, I remember the Saturday Night Massacre, the time when Bill Ruckelshaus and Elliot Richardson stood up to illegal behavior. My father, at the time was definitely a Democrat, but he wanted me to understand this lesson. People of the other party might not share the same philosophy, but they did share the same Constitution, and the scales of justice are balanced. Yes, there is probably no harder task than to stand up to the President of your own party, but that is what Bill Ruckelshaus and Elliot Richardson did. I remember that lesson and called Bill Ruckelshaus after Jeff Sessions recused himself and was fired. Bill's advice was prophetic. He said, ``You should use this opportunity now to make sure the next Attorney General will be an independent and help rein in this president's abuse of power.'' Well, we obviously did not get that done, and we all know what that outcome has been. It occurred to me last weekend that maybe the Saturday Night Massacre in this case has happened. Maybe John Bolton and Fiona Hill will turn out to be those people who stood up to the abuse of power. I know this: It is important to have listened to them. Twice in this gallery over the last several weeks I heard a young baby cry. I thought how unusual that somebody would bring a child to an event like this. Probably their parents wanted to be part of history. And then I thought about what that child would say, probably over the rest of their life: that they had been at this impeachment trial. But what I want to know is about the reflections 30 or 40 years from now. Will we be remembered for rooting out illegal activity, stopping interference in our elections or not, or will this moment have been forgotten? I know my constituents have been clear about this--and I don't mean my constituents that support the President or my constituents that don't support the President. I mean my constituents who want to know that we are going to enforce the law. They don't care about what the outcome is in the next election or how it might benefit either party. And it is clear that either party could overstep in this situation. They want to know if we are going to uphold the oath of office and hold people accountable for wrongdoings that they pursue. I hope that we have taken this election interference issue seriously. I plan to work with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to get more laws passed on election security and to stop interference. I have been a loud and consistent spokesperson for better cybersecurity in our Nation. I am not going to let our democracy be eroded by foreign interests that want to harm what is so precious in our Nation. I will be voting for both articles, and for impeachment. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the career and service of Carl Adrian, who is retiring this month after more than 16 years as the president of the Tri-Cities Economic Development Council in my home State of Washington. Carl has devoted his career to making the Tri-Cities an economic powerhouse, and throughout his time as the longest serving president of TRIDEC, Carl Adrian accomplished so many important things for the region. Thanks in part to his work, the Tri-Cities of today is very different from the Tri-Cities of 16 years ago. Under Carl's leadership, more than 1,300 businesses set up shop in the Tri-Cities and more than 35,000 new jobs were created. These business leaders weren't drawn to the Tri-Cities just because of the weather or the excellent Washington wine; they came because Carl helped create new opportunities and supported significant investments for employers in the region. I have been so pleased to partner with Carl and TRIDEC on so many endeavors over the years. When it comes to Hanford, Carl saw the site as history that should be celebrated and remembered. We worked together to establish the Manhattan Project Historical Park in Richland, which honors the more than 51,000 Hanford workers who helped drive our country's nuclear program and remembers those whose lands were taken when the facilities were built. The site is helping to educate new generations and bringing new visitors to the Tri-Cities. More than 10,000 people visit every year from all 50 States and more than 80 countries. Carl also knows how important it is that we get Hanford cleaned up. He has been a stalwart advocate for the funding we need to clean up the site. And I share his strong belief that the Federal Government has a moral obligation to the Tri-Cities and our State to make sure the Hanford cleanup and its workers receive Federal funding they need. Throughout his time at TRIDEC, Carl has worked on so many other projects of importance to the Tri-Cities. He has been one of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's strongest supporters, working tirelessly to make sure Congress and the Department of Energy recognize the importance of the lab to our region and country. As a result of his advocacy, the lab has experienced significant growth, particularly in energy innovation including grid security, battery storage and clean energy technologies. I was also proud to work with Carl and TRIDEC to expand the Tri-City Regional Airport. His leadership enabled the airport to bring non-stop daily flights from San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Chicago to the region, along with many other destinations. These flights have helped grow the attractiveness of southeastern Washington and allowed many more people to see what the Tri-Cities have to offer. For more than 16 years, Carl Adrian's leadership of the Tri-Cities Economic Development Council has made an impact throughout Southeastern Washington and our entire State. We are all grateful for his hard work and many contributions. Congratulations on your retirement, Carl. I wish you and Rheta great success as you transition to the next chapter of your life.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for mentioning and honoring Chris Allen, and our sympathies to the Grassley family. Thank you so much for talking about the hard work that so many of our staff do around the Capitol that people don't realize. While we have lost some on our side, too, it is important to remember those who give so much of their time and energy to make our country better.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Massachusetts, who has been a leader on this important issue of net neutrality. I want to speak and back up what he said today about why it is so important and that we need to fight to protect a free and open internet, before I do, I would just like to mention that yesterday we filed a bill dealing with trade enforcement. The reason I bring that up is because today there is going to be a lot of discussion about trade writ large. It is very important that in the trade discussion, we also have trade enforcement. Much of what we filed yesterday is what we hope to see in an agreement that is now being unveiled, and this builds on capacity building, which is very important. We want to make sure we have the enforcement capabilities at USTR and now the capacity and enforcement in Mexico to make these agreements work in the future. I look forward to discussing that with my colleagues. I am really here to talk about how 2 years ago, the Trump administration, basically, with the FCC at the helm, repealed net neutrality and put Big Cable in charge of our internet future. Despite 83 percent of all Americans and a majority of Independents, Democrats, and Republicans supporting a free and open internet--that means making sure they weren't charged excessive rates--the FCC chose to side with cable companies. Not long after, Verizon throttled the broadband service of Santa Clara firefighters in California when they were in the midst of fighting the massive Mendocino Complex Fire in 2018. Despite firefighters' urgent pleas to stop the throttling, Verizon refused to do so. For those who don't understand what throttling is, we are always concerned that without rules of the road, companies would slow down some access to internet sites. This is so important because we don't want an internet that is based on how much you pay for faster broadband access. We think that to slow down important sites like public service sites or any sites or to base an internet on how much you pay is the wrong direction. More importantly, we need to make sure we are policing this. Even today, as we have no Federal agency with clear authority to adopt hard and fast rules to keep that situation from happening again, we need to keep fighting. Another example is that wireless carriers have been accused of potentially throttling subscribers to Netflix, YouTube, and Sprint and allegedly interfering with Skype services. Again, that is another example of why we have to keep our message about a free and open internet no matter where we look, where we live, or where we are accessing the internet. It is long past time for the Senate to vote on the Save the Internet Act--something on which our colleague from Massachusetts has been a leader. Our bill would restore the protections for a free and open internet that were had by the Obama FCC in 2015, which would mean no blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization would be allowed. The FCC would have the flexible legal standards by which to address concerns that would arise from these big cable companies' threats to a free and open internet. Again, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership-- persistent both in the House and the Senate--in stressing how important this is. As my colleagues know, these issues are going to be very important in the future, not just with regard to privacy, which the Senator has also been a leader on--and I very much appreciate that the hometown newspaper wrote a glowing endorsement of the legislation he and I have just recently introduced on privacy--but in understanding that in the information age, you have to give consumers rights, that you have to give them the right to privacy, and that you have to give them the right to a free and open internet that is not controlled in speed and that is not controlled by one's saying, If you pay us more, we will give you access. This is going to be a key communication tool for the 21st century, and it needs to be open. I thank my colleague for raising this important issue, and I will continue to work with him and our other colleagues to make it the law of the land. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the importance of passing the expired tax credit provisions for many small businesses and industries that support families and help revitalize economic, depressed communities, and those that are underserved. We all know that 2 years ago, the Republicans and President Trump enacted a $2 trillion tax break for large corporations, and there was a lot of lobbying here that went in to getting that legislation passed. Yet, when it comes to these provisions, which are just about tax certainty in the Tax Code that has been there for decades that really needs to be reauthorized, Congress is not getting the job done, and we need to come to terms now about why it is so important to help small businesses have tax certainty in the code, to help families and communities, and to get this provision done by December 31. We all know how important it is that these individuals, green energy companies, economic development, and many other aspects of the Tax Code are being basically held hostage--since, I believe, 2017--by Congress's inattention to this issue. Our Tax Code is most effective when we have certainty, predictability, and when we have made decisions out of Congress that we think we do want to incent and motivate investment. Renewables are a large source of private sector infrastructure investment, and the clean energy tax credits have allowed industry to scale and invest in technologies that have brought prices down in wind by 68 percent and solar prices by 88 percent. We have seen unbelievable growth in the energy sector because of our investments in the green energy tax credits. Another example is the biodiesel tax credit that I worked on with Chairman Grassley for years. That particular tax credit and its uncertainty and Congress's failure to act and give predictability have led to more than 10 biodiesel plants being closed so far, and there could be many more closed if we fail to act before December 31. This means a loss of jobs and a loss of production of fuel. It means the loss of economic benefit to regions, and it means an impact to soybean and other sectors that have been a part of this growing economy. We need to act before more plants close. I am very concerned about a particular facility in Grays Harbor, WA. While it may employ only 37 people at this point in time, Grays Harbor is an important point in the Washington State economy, located on our coast, and has many great attributes positioned for the future of trade. Not only do I want to see biodiesel grow, I want to see biodiesel exports grow. I think it is shortsighted that Congress can't get its act together to give people predictability and certainty about the Tax Code. Let's talk about some other examples that are not just about clean energy--for example, the medical expense deduction. These deductions give taxpayers certainty on deductions for high out-of-pocket medical costs, and these are things that allow people to deduct qualified expenses that exceed 7\1/2\ percent of their gross income through 2018. This year, the threshold increased to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. If we are not going to give people certainty, it is going to be more dollars out of their pockets. Another example is the mortgage debt forgiveness. When you lose your home, you should not have to pay taxes on your mortgage debt. That is what is going to happen if we don't give people certainty in the Tax Code. Without this provision, if your house is foreclosed on and the remaining debt forgiveness is in bankruptcy, the amount you would have to pay is the same amount you would have to owe instead of being forgiven. So, to me, that inability to not have that mortgage debt deduction-- it is just wrong that Congress can't get its act together. If you are going to get your act together and pass a major bill for corporations, you should at least give small businesses and individual taxpayers the certainty they deserve in the Tax Code. These provisions have been in the Tax Code for a long, long time. This is not like a surprise. It is not as if we haven't done this before. But instead of taking care of today's Tax Code before December 31, people are off making grandiose discussions. I get it that some people on this side of the aisle would like to change and make corrections to the Tax Code, and other people on our side of the aisle would like to make a $100 billion investment in child tax credit. Look, I am appreciative of that discussion, but quit waging that battle, and do our day job, and take the Tax Code and the expiring provisions, and give taxpayers certainty by the 31st of this month. Another example is that the expired provisions would help address the high cost of higher education by allowing students and families to deduct up to $4,000 for tuition and other high education costs. With total student loan debt of $1.5 trillion and average student debt of over $31,000, provisions like these on deductibility are very important. On employment and economic development, nearly 26 percent of the provisions that are expiring are related to incentivizing employment investment in lower income communities. The new markets tax credit. There is probably not a Member in the Senate who has not had a jurisdiction in their State use the new markets tax credit as one of the most effective economic development and community tools. This credit encourages private investments in low- income communities. Since the program was enacted in 2000, the new markets tax credit has delivered over $95 billion in project financing to more than 6,000 projects and created over 1 million jobs. Why can't we have certainty on the new markets tax credit by December 31 of this year? There is no reason. The new markets tax credits expire, and where are we going to be on building affordable housing, healthcare facilities, community clinics, research and technology incubators, and mixed-use commercial programs? I see no reason why we can't get this job done. I have been working with Senators Cardin and Blunt on a bill that would make this program permanent, and, hopefully, we wouldn't have to go through this routine every year. But take another example. The work opportunity tax credit has been an incredibly effective tool in helping individuals, including veterans, to find gainful employment. The work opportunity tax credit provides up to $2,400 for hiring a certified person, including veterans and people receiving SNAP and TANF benefits. We know this program works. In my State, for each person certified to receive the tax credit, there is a net savings of $17,700 in Federal subsidies. Where is the voice for people who say: Let's give a tax credit and put people to work and actually reduce Federal subsidies? Oh, we are letting it expire again and giving uncertainty in the Tax Code. Why? I am not sure because people are too busy posturing in a big debate instead of getting our basic tax extender homework done. Let's not continue to fail. Let's get out here and give these work opportunity tax credits the predictability people would like to see. In 2013, Washington had over 26,000 individuals certified with the tax credit, helping them find employment, and that represented a total of $42 million in savings. All of these issues I am talking about--investments in our communities, investments in tax credits that give businesses certainties so that they can continue to drive down costs, investments in low-income communities, investments to help retrain and get people off the subsidies--why can't we get this done? I hope that people will understand that these small businesses and these families don't have people running through the halls to lobby for them as they did on the big corporate tax break, but I guarantee you, they deserve the tax certainty. They deserve the predictability. Yes, we can continue to debate the last big tax bill all through 2020. I guarantee you that we will spend a lot of time talking about it, and each side can raise their voice and wage their battle. But do not fail to get this basic job done that we keep failing to do-- literally, not giving these businesses and individuals certainty, I think, since 2017. People keep thinking you are going to make it retroactive for 3 years. No, stop. Get this job done and give the certainty to small businesses and underserved communities that they deserve. Help them to succeed just like you helped big corporations. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues on the floor and pay tribute to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and to congratulate him on his retirement after 20 years in Congress, including the past 15 years in the U.S. Senate. We worked together on key provisions of the SECURE Act to improve retirement planning for millions of Americans. I would be remiss if I did not mention all the work he has done on behalf of our veterans. His work on the VA MISSION Act is important to so many people who have served our country. We also worked together on the Finance Committee for the last 6 years on important issues like affordable housing. There has been no better advocate for the affordable housing tax credit--helping to secure billions of dollars in funding for affordable housing nationwide--than Senator Isakson. It is true that my colleague Senator Hatch and I had a bill that helped to increase the affordable housing tax credit, but I guarantee you, there is nobody who understood it better, could explain it better, and could bring more colleagues to join us in support of it than Johnny Isakson. I was amazed at a debate in the Finance Committee. Some of our colleagues weren't quite sure of their support, but by the time Johnny Isakson was done speaking, I think they had to backtrack their opposition and wonder if they would ever take him on in a debate again. I thank him for that because that is an issue that has complexity to it, but at its heart and soul, it is really about providing affordable housing to our fellow human beings, and Johnny knew that. I so appreciated his joining us this year again as we fight to get more affordable housing. We also have worked together on very small things with our colleague Senator Fischer to make sure that military servicemembers didn't get charged cancellation fees for TV and internet services when they were deployed and to work on diverse issues like mass timber innovation and funding for community health centers. One thing is clear, though, when you work on all of these issues with Johnny Isakson, you realize that not only is there great integrity behind the purpose of what he focuses on and great intelligence that he brings to the debate, but there also is just a general kindness to his personality. You know, sometimes, I think today we have lost that kindness and ability to work across the aisle. When you read stories about our past predecessors, whether it was in the time of Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson, I keep thinking: Did they get along because they had to stay here? They couldn't travel all the way back to the Pacific Northwest. So they bonded together. Many of them lived in rooming houses together and did all sorts of activities and got to know each other. Our colleagues lament many times: Where has this Senate gone? Well, I think today we saw at lunch and have seen many times over the hospitality of barbecue with Johnny Isakson that you don't have to be with each other on weekends and you don't have to stay here to get to know people. The ability to communicate just a little bit of niceness, a little bit of civility, a little bit of ``I will work with you on this important issue'' is what it takes to make the Senate work. Johnny, I just want to congratulate you for 20 years of service in the U.S. Senate, but, more importantly, for reminding us what the Senate should be about and that just a few words and a few examples and a common attitude can really bring us together, and we mount an effort to surpass the biggest obstacles that we face because of our regions and our ideologies. That is what we have to get back to. So, as you go home to Georgia, I hope that you will take our great gratitude for reminding us of all of that, and I know that you will always have a smile, a quick wit about you, something nice to say, and we will always remember you as the Senator who not only got things done but who made us feel like the Senate again. Thank you.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I join my colleagues on the floor tonight. I thank the Senator from Colorado for an articulate and very passionate speech about the reasons the U.S. Senate should be voting on sensible gun laws. That is what we are really here to say tonight--that it is past time we take action and that we in the U.S. Senate should let the American people know where Members of the U.S. Senate stand on these important issues. Too many Americans have been impacted by gun violence, and too many places have been the sites of these attacks, whether they be churches, synagogues, or mosques or whether they be our schoolchildren or people just going about their everyday lives with their shopping, going to a concert, or even watching a movie. Too many families and friends are left waiting, trying to understand whether their loved ones are going to return home, and too many have been devastated to find out that their loved ones aren't coming back. It is time that we act here in the U.S. Senate and support legislation that we know the American people support. In my home State, there are places like the Seattle Pacific University and the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, Freeman High School outside of Spokane, Marysville Pilchuck High School, the Burlington shopping mall in Skagit County, and White Swan. All of these communities have taught us that we need to act. It is past time for us to act here. The good news is that the people of Washington State did act. Those people rose up and helped to support legislative initiatives that went to a vote of the people. Not only have they been successfully passed, but they are showing successful results. In the State of Washington, we passed universal background checks by a popular vote in 2014, and we saw amazing results in just the first 14 months. They helped to prevent over 50 gun sales to felons. My colleague from Colorado mentioned a similar thing in his State. And after closing private sale loopholes, it resulted in 144 denials to those with expanded background checks. It does mean that the people of Washington State are at least safer in this regard because we have more tools in our toolbox with which to deal with this. I also want people to understand that we passed a law to allow extreme risk protection orders. That was passed in 2016 with nearly 70 percent of Washington State voters helping and voting in that election. What we saw was that in a State where we probably have 27 percent gun ownership, we saw in 32 out of 39 counties people supporting this measure to say that people who pose an extreme risk should not be allowed to get their hands on a gun. This was supported in rural communities, suburban communities, and urban communities. In front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Kimberly Wyatt testified. She called this measure a ``critical, evidence-based, harm reduction tool.'' Now, how does that sound so threatening--a tool that law enforcement is telling us is critical and evidence-based that is going to help us to reduce harm to our fellow citizens? Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Kimberly Wyatt told a story of a doctor who contacted police because a patient who had wanted to obtain a concealed weapon permit had repeatedly talked about making a hit list and ``doing harm to people.'' In using the extreme risk protection order, we are allowed to help to keep these people from getting their hands on gun and doing harm to themselves and to fellow citizens. These measures supported in my State are initiatives by the people. As I said, they are supported by wide majorities across all geographic areas of our State. Yet we can't find out here in the U.S. Senate how our Senate colleagues would vote on these very important measures. I hope those on the other side of the aisle will consider these. We will go State by State if necessary. We will get the people involved in passing these laws. Why? It is that they know they are common sense, and they work, and we want to keep the public safe. We know that we want to have these tools so law enforcement and others can do their jobs. It is long overdue to have a vote in the U.S. Senate on these issues, and I hope our colleagues will give us that opportunity. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the nomination of Stephen Dickson to be the next Administrator of the FAA. I have said that it is very important that in this day and age, when it comes to aviation, safety must always be our top priority. We considered Mr. Dickson's nomination, his record, and the ongoing case of a whistleblower retaliation, and given all of that, it is clear to me that he is not the right person for the safety culture we need today at the FAA. It is distressing to me that Mr. Dickson advanced out of committee on just a party-line vote. We have never had a partisan vote on an FAA nominee in the past, and I believe we should have found consensus on the nominee for the FAA given all the concerns the public has about flying safety. The reason why I oppose Mr. Dickson is from what I understood, after the hearing, from First Officer Karlene Petitt, who has a Ph.D. in aviation safety and is an experienced pilot over 40 years and happens to be one of my constituents. At a hearing, we basically understood that no one was holding Mr. Dickson accountable for actions that he took against her at Delta Airlines. Back in 2010, she was a pilot on an A330 flight. She had seen a crash of an A330 plane--tragically, an Air France plane in the Atlantic Ocean. She had also heard comments from those in the Delta executive team that if you have a concern about safety, say something. So she thought she was doing just that. As part of what she thought was important information following these A330 incidents, she said she had concern about pilot training when it came to potential automation and failures of making sure that they were giving enough rest time to pilots. She observed that there were issues she thought were putting both her and passengers at risk. So what did she do? She did what all employees, we hope, would do. She informed her superiors and suggested possible solutions. She was persistent and wanted to make sure that these recommendations were met with by the leadership of the organization--Mr. Dickson and his second- in-command, Jim Graham. Some of the concerns she raised about inadequate pilot training and not enough pilot rest were things that you thought would have maybe gotten her recognized for the great contribution to a safety culture that is so necessary today in an age of more and more automation. Whether you are talking about an automobile or an airplane, it is essential that automation and training go hand in hand. Instead of Officer Petitt getting the attention she deserved, the company sent her for a mandatory psychiatric evaluation. Can you imagine a whistleblower bringing up concerns as a pilot flying for many years and instead of being paid attention to, being sent for a psychiatric evaluation? Just a few months after Officer Petitt raised her concerns, that is exactly what happened. Delta and Mr. Dickson removed her from duty and required her to undergo a mental health evaluation, forcing her to protect her career and her reputation. The psychiatrist Mr. Dickson's team handpicked to examine Ms. Petitt had his own problems of serious red flags and retaliatory threats. For example, the doctor cited that just because Officer Petitt had three kids, a job, and helped her husband with his career, she must be manic. I don't know about the Presiding Officer, but to me it just sounds like being an American woman today, juggling many things. The psychiatrist even had the nerve to ask when the first officer was pumping breast milk for her children. That is the kind of questioning the officer had to answer. The good news is that there are laws on the books that protect people in these kinds of incidents when they are a whistleblower and they have been retaliated against. Later, a panel of eight doctors from the Mayo Clinic and another independent doctor came to the opposite conclusion of this psychiatrist, stating that Officer Petitt had no mental issues and that she should continue to fly as she had done for many years. It is very unfortunate that this situation arose, but it is more unfortunate that Mr. Dickson was not evenhanded about it when his nomination came before the committee. It is standard operating procedure in the U.S. Senate to ask nominees this question: Have you or any business or nonprofit that you have been associated with been involved as a party to an administrative agency, criminal, or civil litigation? Why do we want to know that? We want to know of any kind of derogatory information about a nominee whom we are about to entrust with the public confidence through the U.S. Senate. We want to know whether there have been any issues and whether that trust has been misplaced. Instead of answering that question, he did not bring up this incident at Delta. I don't know of any nominee before the Commerce Committee who, having failed to disclose this kind of information, then moved forward after it was brought up. That is right. The only reason we knew about this incident is not because of his requirement to disclose it and his failure to disclose it but because, during the hearing when everybody heard all of this glowing information, a whistleblower came forward to explain to members of the committee that this incident took place and exactly what had happened to her in her career as she tried to raise important issues. When Mr. Dickson was asked for further information about this lawsuit and why he didn't disclose it, he went on to minimize his involvement, saying that it amounted to essentially one meeting with the pilot; however, a review of written records, emails, depositions, and other materials showed that Mr. Dickson was more involved than just one meeting. We all want our officials to show a commitment to safety, establishing rules and a culture that protects the flying public. That is one reason Captain Sullenberger has come out against this nominee. He knows that when it comes to creating a culture of safety, it has to start at the top, and we have to listen to people like the pilots who are showing concerns today about the Boeing 737 MAX. We should listen to them and the inspector general on what types of processes should be put in place to resolve the challenges we face as we integrate more automation. Automation can help us make things safer, but automation without the pilot training, without the integration, without a culture that rewards people for bringing up issues, instead of almost red-coding them as a response, is not what we need to be doing. A 2016 report by the Department of Transportation inspector general highlights the essential role of FAA oversight to reduce the hazards with regard to increased reliance on flight deck automation. The FAA estimates that automation is used 90 percent of the time in flight. Yet, according to the inspector general report, the FAA did not have a process to ensure that airline pilots are properly trained to use and monitor automation systems while maintaining proficiency in manual flight operations. The report recommended that the FAA provide guidance in defining standards that airlines can use to train and evaluate pilots in the use of automation. It also recommended that standards be established to determine whether pilots were receiving sufficient training to develop and maintain manual flying skills. These are the very matters First Officer Petitt had focused on when making her observations and suggestions regarding safety. They are as critical today as they were for the A330. We are living in an era of increasing automation, and we have work to do. I guarantee that we are going to continue to play a role in this in the Commerce Committee, making sure the inspector general's criticisms of the FAA with regard to these issues are addressed. We need someone on the frontline who takes safety seriously and listens to the pilots. I know these issues are weighing on the American public--the very questions that Dr. Petitt asked. I am sure, with the right amount of engineering and cooperation, we can get them right. But Mr. Dickson has doubled down. He basically said that he had no regrets about how he handled the situation when we came back at him about the fact that the information wasn't submitted. He basically said he had no regrets about trying to end a 40-year career of a whistleblower. I find this very challenging. I want the FAA to move forward with confidence that we are going to create the safety culture necessary for today's environment. Captain Sullenberger said it best: This nominee, while a senior executive at Delta Airlines, either caused or allowed a whistleblower with validated safety concerns to be retaliated against. I strongly oppose his nomination. The decisions the next FAA Administrator makes will determine how safe every airline passenger and crew will be. I know that it is hard for people in busy jobs to slow down and listen to whistleblowers, but I guarantee they have helped us many times to solve many problems. I ask my colleagues to turn down this nomination today and to help us create an environment where whistleblowers will be listened to. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.